Dhr. J. Dijsselbloem Minister van Financiën Dhr E. Wiebes Staatssecretaris van Financiën CC Ruud de Swart, plv Directeur Algemene Fiscale Politiek CC Rijer Jansen, permanente vertegenwoordiging bij de EU CC Harry Roodbeen, Directeur Internationale Zaken en Verbruiksbelastingen 08/06/2016 Betreft: Anti-Tax Avoidance Richtlijn - fiscale rechtvaardigheid vereist sterke CFC-regels Geachte heer Dijsselbloem, Op 28 januari jl. heeft de Europese Commissie de Anti-Tax Avoidance Richtlijn (ATAD) uitgebracht met een reeks maatregelen om belastingontwijking binnen de EU en daarbuiten aan te pakken. Het pakket bestaat onder andere uit een voorstel voor Controlled Foreign Company Regels (CFC regels). Sterke CFC-regels zijn een cruciale maatregel tegen de winstverschuiving naar lage belastingjurisdicties. Als het inkomen van de dochteronderneming in het buitenland wordt belast tegen een laag effectief tarief of helemaal niet belast wordt, dan worden de CFCregels toegepast en belast de belastingdienst van het moederland van de onderneming het inkomen van de buitenlandse dochter. Het belangrijkste doel van CFC-regels is om winstverschuivingen naar belastingparadijzen buiten de EU te ontmoedigen, wat zowel de ontwikkelde als de ontwikkelingslanden ten goede moet komen. Helaas tonen de laatste besprekingen in de Raad Economische en Financiële Zaken (Ecofin) op 25 mei weinig bereidheid om effectieve anti-belastingontwijking maatregelen in alle lidstaten in te voeren. Sommige lidstaten, zoals Denemarken, pleiten voor sterke en mechanische CFC-regels met derde landen. Wij roepen u op om deze positie voor effectievere CFC-regels te volgen en te proberen om hierover consensus te bereiken met alle lidstaten. Te veel speelruimte voor de uitvoering van deze maatregelen zal ervoor zorgen dat bedrijven hun winsten naar belastingparadijzen kunnen blijven verschuiven. Daarnaast zouden CFC regels minimaal
moeten gelden voor winst verschoven uit alle landen, met inbegrip van de ontwikkelingslanden en andere lidstaten dan het moederland. In het kader van de lopende onderhandelingen, moedigen alle leden van Tax Justice Nederland u aan om leiderschap te tonen en steun te verwerven voor de voorgestelde oplossingen voor robuuste CFC-regels die u kunt vinden in de bijlage. Dit is niet alleen in belang van Nederland, maar zal overheden in de hele wereld helpen bij het veiligstellen van belastinginkomsten die cruciaal zijn voor duurzame ontwikkeling. Hoogachtend, Giuseppe van der Helm - Voorzitter Tax Justice Nederland Tax Justice NL is een netwerk bestaande uit: Oxfam Novib, SOMO, FNV, Both Ends, Oikos, Max van der Stoel Foundation, Transnational Institute en ActionAid. Voor meer informatie over deze brief, kunt u contact opnemen met Maaike van Diepen, Coördinator Tax Justice Nederland (maaike@taxjustice.nl)
Annex Oxfam s Recommendations on CFC Rules Recommended compromise for strong CFC rules The most effective rules against profit shifting to CFCs would be to use only the categorical approach specified in Article 8(2)(a) regardless of the location of the CFC. However, if a compromise is needed then we would recommend to use only the categorical approach, but limit application of CFC rules to entities and permanent establishments in non-eea third countries. To that end, remove Articles 8(2)(b), 8(4) and 9(2) and adjust the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) as follows: The Member State of a taxpayer shall treat an entity, or a permanent establishment of which the profits are not subject to tax or are exempt from tax in that Member State, which is resident or situated in a third country that is not party to the EEA Agreement, as a controlled foreign company where the following conditions are met: To match this, adjust the last subparagraph of Article 8(2)(a) as follows: Where the controlled foreign company is resident or situated in a third country that is not party to the EEA Agreement, Member States may decide to refrain from applying the second subparagraph of point (a). and in Recital (13), delete the fourth and fifth sentence, and adjust the third sentence as follows: (13) [ ] Depending on the policy priorities of that State, CFC rules may target an entire lowtaxed subsidiary, or specific categories of income or be limited to income which has artificially been diverted to the subsidiary. In particular, in order to ensure that CFC rules are a proportionate response to BEPS concerns, it is critical that Member States that limit their CFC rules to income which has been artificially diverted to the subsidiary precisely target situations where most of the decision-making functions which generated diverted income at the level of the controlled subsidiary are carried out in the Member State of the taxpayer. With a view to limiting the administrative burden and compliance costs, it should also be acceptable that those Member States exempt certain entities with low profits or a low profit margin that give rise to lower risks of tax avoidance. Accordingly, it is necessary that the CFC rules extend to the profits of permanent establishments where those profits are not subject to tax or are tax exempt in the Member State of the taxpayer. [ ] ***
An even stronger compromise would be to only use the categorical approach for CFCs in non- EEA third countries, and only the transactional approach for CFCs in EU/EEA countries. This would require some small changes in Article 8(2) and Recital (13). *** Recommendation to cover profits shifted out of all countries If the transactional approach specified in Article 8(2)(b) is retained, adjust the last subparagraph of Article 8(2)(b) as follows: For the purposes of point (b), an arrangement or a series thereof shall be regarded as nongenuine to the extent that the entity or permanent establishment would not own the assets or would not have undertaken the risks that generate all, or part of, its income if it were not directly or indirectly controlled by a company where the the taxpayer, or by the taxpayer together with its associated enterprises. This is the case if significant people functions, which are relevant to those assets and risks, are carried out and which are instrumental in generating all, or part of, the controlled foreign company's income are carried out by the tax payer, by any one or more of its associated enterprises, or a by combination thereof. Adjust Article 9(2)(b) as follows: Where point (b) of Article 8 paragraph 2 applies, the income to be included in the tax base of the taxpayer shall be limited to amounts generated through assets and risks which are linked to significant people functions carried out by the controlling company taxpayer, by any one or more of its associated enterprises, or a by combination thereof. The attribution of controlled foreign company income shall be calculated in accordance with the arm's length principle. Adjust the fourth sentence of Recital (13) as follows: [ ] In particular, in order to ensure that CFC rules are a proportionate response to BEPS concerns, it is critical that Member States that limit their where CFC rules are limited to income which has been artificially diverted to the subsidiary CFC, precisely it is critical that Member States target situations where most of the decision-making the functions which generated diverted income at the level of the controlled subsidiary CFC are carried out in the Member State of the taxpayer by other entities within the group.[ ] Explanation: These changes bring the link between the taxpayer and a CFC that is an entity in line with Articles 8(1)(a) and 2(3), recognizing that an entity also qualifies as a CFC if it is controlled by the taxpayer together with its associated enterprises, but not by the taxpayer alone. In addition, these changes clarify that an arrangement (or a series thereof) must also be regarded as nongenuine (at least to a certain extent) if relevant significant people functions are carried out by any associated enterprises of the taxpayer (which may or may not be associated enterprises that control the CFC together with the taxpayer, and in addition to relevant significant people functions being carried out by the taxpayer itself). For consistency reasons, it is suggested to change controlled company and subsidiary into CFC.